Pages

Monday, 19 September 2016

For Soumya, Legal loopholes loosen the noose!

Soumya rape and murder case of Kerala that once again
returned to national headlines last week following Supreme Court’s refusal to
give death penalty to the accused — Govindachamy — appears to have entered
another round of controversy. The rape and murder of Soumya on a railway track
in Kerala in February 2011 had shocked the conscience of the nation. Even more
shocking is that Govindachamy, the prime and only accused, has now escaped the
gallows. The Supreme Court did not find valid the evidence that forced the
sessions court to award capital punishment. He has been given life imprisonment
which means he can even come out of jail after a few years. It is surprising
that the apex court did not find it one of the rarest of rare cases where death
penalty is the norm, not the exception.

The court's mind was obvious from the question a judge
asked: Where is the proof that he pushed her out of the train?

The doctor who prepared the postmortem report listed the
evidence to substantiate her point that Soumya did not jump from the train but
was pushed out of it. Alas, her answers did not reach the court which went by
the contradictory statements some witnesses made. That scientific evidence is
more reliable than personal statements is well-known.

If in this particular case the court relied more on the
loopholes in the verdict, the credit should go to the lawyer who pleaded his
case. It is surprising that the lawyer who charges astronomical fees appeared
for this petty criminal-turned-rapist! The verdict is also a pointer to the
cavalier attitude shown by the Kerala government in defending the verdict. It
engaged a new lawyer who did not know much about the case and he allegedly did
not show much interest in gathering all the facts and figures to demand the
highest punishment. The SC verdict has disappointed not just Soumya's mother,
but millions of people. The argument that the prosecution will file a curative
petition is unlikely to convince many as only in very rare cases do the courts
accept such a petition. Even if it is accepted, the prosecution will have to
show some startling new evidence, which is an impossible task. Establishment of
mens rea (culpable state of mind) is a prerequisite for awarding the
death sentence (“TN man escapes noose in Soumya rape, murder case”, Sept.16).
Moreover, such a type of harsh punishment is awarded only in the rarest of rare
cases. Lack of evidence vis-à-vis intention of murder on the part of the
convict is what has led the Supreme Court to pass such an order. That being so,
its order commuting death sentence to life sentence cannot be faulted. Above
all, “an eye for an eye” cannot be the solution for all evils given the growing
demand across the world for abolishing the death sentence. However, one cannot
ignore the voices of a section who want the offence of rape to be made more
serious and the quantum of punishment enhanced.